On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

Can a United States bankruptcy court deny recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding even if no one opposes such recognition? In a recent decision, Judge Burton Lifland, a highly respected bankruptcy judge and one of the authors of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, says yes.

Liquidators of Bear Stearns Funds Seek Relief under Chapter 15

The Bottom Line:

Court holds that distributions made pursuant to priority payment provisions contained in CDO transactions are protected by Section 560 of the Bankruptcy Code

On May 30, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court in one federal district lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a debt was discharged under a chapter 11 plan confirmation order issued by a bankruptcy court in another federal district.  Alderwoods Group, Inc. v. Garcia, 1:10-cv-20509-KMM, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10891 (11th Cir. May 30, 2012).  The decision makes it clear that a debtor must seek enforcement of its discharge order in the same federal court that granted the discharge in the first place.

In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Third Circuit-affirmed settlement and dismissal of the chapter 11 cases of Jevic Transportation, Inc. (“Jevic”) and certain of its affiliates. SeeOfficial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grantedCzyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (U.S. 2016).

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit bear a substantial burden when seeking to be certified as a class under federal law. Where the defendant commences a bankruptcy proceeding, and the plaintiffs seek to file a proof of claim on behalf of all class members, that burden becomes even greater and is rife with obstacles unique to the bankruptcy process.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a lender liability class action brought by employees of a defunct originator and seller of mortgages and home equity loans. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20791 (2d Cir. August 30, 2007). Agreeing with the district court, the Second Circuit held that the lender was not an "employer" within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and thus was not liable to the employees for the sudden loss of their jobs. Id., at *2.

Summary

In a 24 page decision signed July 8, 2011, Judge Walrath of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to for summary judgment, holding a non-debtor defendant liable with the Debtor as a single employer for alleged WARN Act violations. Judge Walrath’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Background